Remove bridge repair with wrench (and other bridge-related suggestions)

[hachichin]

It's just silly isn't it watching a lone engineer with his wrench lying prone in front of gaping hole on a stone bridge?

I would like to see bridges needing a lot more C4's in order to get blown up, but once they are, they should not be repairable with wrenches.

Would it be possible to implement a "hitbox" on a bridge, where you would have to place a sufficient number of C4's on specific locations in order to blow the bridge? For example having to place 4 charges on each of the pillars (on Qwai-bridges f.e)?

That would be really fun and make the boats somewhat more valuable (since you can't place C4's while submerged in the water).

Another idea regarding repair would be to make it a Commander-asset. Give the CO a "bridge bandaid" that he can deploy over the holes in the vicinity of a Support Truck. Some sort of steel construction a couple of meters long and the same width as the bridge lane. I'm sure there are RL-military gadgets to draw inspiration from.

An alternative repair-idea is to make the bridges repair themselves over time if you hold a specific objective long enough. To use Qwai River as an example one could have Government Office as a trigger. If the bridges are destroyed when the PLA captures Government then they will be automatically repaired after the flag has been held continuously for 5 or 10 mins. This would simulate the Chinese being in control of the surrounding area thus enabling their "invisible engineers" to safely start the work of repairing the bridges.

One could also have the North Bridge triggered to respond to Mines and the South Bridge being tied to Processing Facility, but I personally would prefer them both being triggered by Goverment Office.

[Rudd]

Innovative, I like it. But I think engineers should still be able to repair bridges, since we cant do things like pontoon bridges with this engine.

[RCMoonPie]

I like the idea.....I just dont think it warrants changing the game all that much.
I agree that having a concrete bridge being repaired by a guy with a wrench seems silly, But it really isnt that bad.

[RCMoonPie]

It is that bad.

A concrete bridge with steel reinforcement takes a long time to do.

You need to mould/import the correct size parts, test the rest of the supporting structure and ground to check for other damage, replace supporting structures if they are damaged, lift the supports into place, secure them, wait for the substrate to cure, lay the tarmac top, wait for it to cool, replace safety structures THEN use it.

It is a HUGE job. It cannot be done on an active battlefield and requires engineers to tell you what to do and test things. It would take weeks.

EDIT:
typical pavement thickness shown on wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... tratum.JPG

You do realize were discussing a GAME right?

[Rudd]

It is that bad.

A concrete bridge with steel reinforcement takes a long time to do.

You need to mould/import the correct size parts, test the rest of the supporting structure and ground to check for other damage, replace supporting structures if they are damaged, lift the supports into place, secure them, wait for the substrate to cure, lay the tarmac top, wait for it to cool, replace safety structures THEN use it.

It is a HUGE job. It cannot be done on an active battlefield and requires engineers to tell you what to do and test things. It would take weeks.

EDIT:
typical pavement thickness shown on wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... tratum.JPG

What you say is very true. However as I said- we do not have the capabilities as yet to build the kind of temporary bridges the engineers are capable of building IRL. So this is an appropriate placeholder.

[Enderjmu]

So... Why not have the supports be one material, and the bridge itself be another?

If the actual flat part of the bridge is destroyed, then it is repairable (if you have 2-3 engineers repairing it, and even then it takes a couple minutes)

But if the supports go, then the bridge just goes "poof" and disappears, raining bits of bridge onto unsuspecting boaters underneath (can we do that?)

Maybe if you JDAM a bridge, it'll become irreparable (it IS a 500 pound bomb...)

[hachichin]

Would be nice with some DEV-input on what is actually feasible within the BF2-engine.

Is it possible to have a bridge autorepair itself after a specific flag is captured and held?

Jonny: Having an engineer repair a bridge with a wrench is a lot more unrealistic than making a lone C4 on top of the bridge less damaging than it would be IRL...

My reason for making the bridges take multiple C4's to bring down is to balance out the removal of bridge repair by wrench... If one needs 6+ C4's or something like that than it should require both time and a cohesive squad-effort to sabotage a bridge. This gives both the saboteurs and the defenders of a bridge more of a enjoyable gaming experience (IMO).

Wouldn't it be great to have a squad in a boat sneaking up to a bridge in order to place C4's on the pillars?

[RCMoonPie]

You do realise its name is Project Reality dont you?
Note the Reality part.

I do....but do you expect the devs to set up an engineer kit that provides masonry workers and cement trucks and steel workers?

Should a game round last 3 to 4 weeks while a bridge is reconstructed?

Should we have to wait a "real" amount of time for vehicles to be manufactured and shipped into the region after they are destroyed as well?

Do you believe our men and women who are dying daily in Iraq and Afghanistan are "respawning" somewhere at a rally-point?

Come on dude.

Its a game...except the wrenches on bridges and move on.

If you expect this degree of realism....I suggest you go to the nearest recruiter of the military branch of your choosing and enlist.

I have had my share of realism and now I just want to play.

[Artnez[US]]

I think what this guy is trying to say is that bridges are a HUUUGE asset in military operations. The military wouldn't make a bridge deploying vehicle if that wasn't the case. Real life commanders plan entire maneuvers based on whether or not a bridge is intact.

So with that said, having a lone engineer repair the bridge in a few minutes just seems like it's not enough. There needs to be more effort that goes into doing this.

It doesn't have to be 100% realistic, but at least something that will make bridges a true asset that will be the target of a defending force.

[RCMoonPie]

;599760']I think what this guy is trying to say is that bridges are a HUUUGE asset in military operations. The military wouldn't make a bridge deploying vehicle if that wasn't the case. Real life commanders plan entire maneuvers based on whether or not a bridge is intact.

So with that said, having a lone engineer repair the bridge in a few minutes just seems like it's not enough. There needs to be more effort that goes into doing this.

It doesn't have to be 100% realistic, but at least something that will make bridges a true asset that will be the target of a defending force.

Before he has a chance to chime-in and say "yeah....thats what I meant"
That is NOT what he said.

Even if this were the case....a better suggestion would be that 2 or more engineers must repair a bridge instead of just one.

[BloodBane611]

Jonny knows what he is talking about, and has proved it many times. MoonPie, in your short time here, you have not done so. I think Jonny made some excellent points, which fully deserve exploration.

']I think what this guy is trying to say is that bridges are a HUUUGE asset in military operations. The military wouldn't make a bridge deploying vehicle if that wasn't the case. Real life commanders plan entire maneuvers based on whether or not a bridge is intact.

This is so very true. A bridge somewhere means that you can move a column from point A to point B. With no bridge, no movement, and therefore you lose one avenue of attack.


I agree that bridge supports should be more vulnerable than the road surface, and it should definitely take more than one or two C4 charges to destroy the surface of the bridge. Of course the wrench is unrealistic, but that is because bridging has been shot down before. I think that in the vein of deployable statics like bunkers and firebases, a bridge would definitely be possible. This would not only add depth and realism, but be a serious gameplay addition, especially on maps like Qwai, where the bridges are immensely important for the chinese team to leverage their firepower advantage.

[Sealights]

As for comander asset it could work.

[RCMoonPie]

Jonny knows what he is talking about, and has proved it many times. MoonPie, in your short time here, you have not done so. I think Jonny made some excellent points, which fully deserve exploration.

I'll give you your argument concerning my "time on deck". But it doesnt mean my opinion is invalid or my knowlege is worthless. The both of you at one point had just as many posts as I. Everyone is new at one time. Do the number of posts alone have any bearing on whether you are right or wrong? Wow.

This is so very true. A bridge somewhere means that you can move a column from point A to point B. With no bridge, no movement, and therefore you lose one avenue of attack.


I agree that bridge supports should be more vulnerable than the road surface, and it should definitely take more than one or two C4 charges to destroy the surface of the bridge. Of course the wrench is unrealistic, but that is because bridging has been shot down before. I think that in the vein of deployable statics like bunkers and firebases, a bridge would definitely be possible. This would not only add depth and realism, but be a serious gameplay addition, especially on maps like Qwai, where the bridges are immensely important for the chinese team to leverage their firepower advantage.

I do agree with some of these points in regard to weaker points than others....but as far as deployable assets go and making a bridge a deployable asset....
Jonny's argument (that you were quick to defend) says that in "reality" this is impossible to do with the wrench and it looks stupid.(not a direct quote but Im being brief)
This being the case, are we supposed to believe (with jonnys argument and your defense) that we are to have a spannable bridge, strong enough for an M1A1 to traverse, built by either 1 man with a wrench or 1 man with a shovel?

[SnipingCoward]

i think bridges are fine as they are now - but i agree that those assets would be cool - making the usual bridges unrepairable then seems logically correct to me too

untill we get commander asset bridges
having the bridge repairable and making it take an awful long time is an acceptable compromise for gameplay, imho